Bullish on 538, bearish on the rest

3/14/14 11:45 AM EDT

It's been a long winter. There's been a lot of buildup. Every one and their mother — Nate Silver (at ESPN), Ezra Klein (at Vox), David Leonhardt (at The New York Times), Jim Tankersley (at The Washington Post), etc. — is getting ready to launch a new data-driven analytical journalism vertical that promises to change the way we understand news. They're hiring young staffers and making announcements incrementally, so as to heighten the anticipation.

Buildup is good for marketing, but only to a point. You don't want to set expectations too high. No one's going to forgive a long winter if the cherry blossoms don't show.

Like many of my colleagues, I'm getting annoyed by all the talk about these "revolutionary" products that are about to go up on the market. I'm also growing increasingly convinced that, with the exception of Nate Silver, we're all going to feel pretty let down by them.

Not because they won't be good, smart, helpful, etc. I'm sure they will be. Klein is super smart, he's building a great team. Same goes for Leonhardt and Tankersley. The more smart analysis there is, the more context we can have for the day's news, the better. But nothing about what they're doing is actually revolutionary. In fact, the Internet is flooded with people who want to provide context or analysis, and often severely lacking for good reporting. I'm really happy that Klein, Leonhardt, et al., want to give us a better version of that, in the same way I'm happy when new artists outperform old ones. But my guess is these sites will more or less just melt into the current media landscape, another bookmark in your bookmarks bar.

I'm more bullish about Nate Silver's "FiveThirtyEight," chiefly because it's forward-looking. By adding probabilities to analysis, Silver is putting his neck on the line every time he hits publish — and it's always fun to watch someone put their neck on the line. Now, I understand that when Silver says there's a, say, 86.3 percent chance that, say, Villanova will win the NCAA tournament, that doesn't mean he's making a prediction. And I understand that he's not wrong if Villanova loses. But if you think Silver's reputation doesn't depend on his ability to accurately anticipate future events, you're kidding yourself. I've been criticized in the past for suggesting as much — despite the fact Silver's said the same thing (see kicker).

In short, the reception to Klein, et al., is going to be largely subjective. Maybe people like the analysis and context they provide, maybe they find it smart and helpful. Maybe some general consensus will form around who's doing it best. But the reception to Silver is actually going to be data-driven. Because you can gamble on it. Because Silver is gambling his reputation — and, yes, his celebrity — on what he puts up.